Mad Men Jumps the Gefilte Fish Part One: Missed Collegiality

“Only act with Honourable Men: You can trust them and they you. Their honour is the best surety of their behaviour even in misunderstandings, for they always act having regard to what they are. Hence tis better to have a dispute with honourable people than to have a victory over dishonourable ones. You cannot treat with the ruined, for they have no hostages for rectitude. With them there is no true friendship, and their agreements are not binding, however stringent they may appear, because they have no feeling of honour. Never have to do with such men, for if honour does not restrain a man, virtue will not, since honour is the throne of rectitude” — Baltasar Gracián’s The Art of Worldly Wisdom, Aphorism #116

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” — Frédéric Bastiat, 1850

While I was quite interested in Mad Men at the start, especially for its sense of fashion and décor — see my Counter-Currents essay “Mad Männerbund?” reprinted in my new book, The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012) — I’ve been quite disappointed with the latest season, due to a perceptible ramping up of the “Judaics rule OK” factor; but the Memorial Day Weekend episode, involving a more than usually distasteful plot development — the partners of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce agree to whore out fan-beloved office manager Joan to reel in a client — seems to have finally generated some general disgust and rebellion among the fans, to judge by the blogs etc., which articulate the more pertinent division between the True Believers, who acclaim the episode for “showing us just how awful and evil the times were” and Those Who See, who are “tired of plots about how totally evil [we] White folks are.”

Coincidentally — if there are coincidences here in the Matrix — The Occidental Observer had an excellent review of a new movie that also reflects a new level of Judaic impudence — what we’ve called, using the Masonic terminology, The Revelation of the Method[1] — in the form of a new film called Margin Call.[2]

Short version: in 2008, a conspiracy of WASP bankers, led by Jeremy Irons (the blond East German terrorist in Die Hard with a Vengeance, more recently Pope Alexander in The Borgias), tried to take over the world, but were thwarted by a lone outsider, Jewish, natch. Yeah, that’s what happened. Ah, I remember it well.

For while The Revelation of the Method is a deliberate, albeit secret, strategy, what we have here, I suggest, is a different, and well-known, phenomenon: the Judaics have “jumped the shark.”

In general, we can say that — just as TV critics have noted that popular shows will, ipso facto, be run year after year by greedy networks until, having run well past of original ideas, the writers will begin to “resort to stunts to retain viewer interest . . . such as ‘it was all a dream’ episodes, live episodes, lead actors playing guest characters, and putting [the] entire cast into a parody of some pop cultural event”[3] — we can also say that at some similar point, the mask will slip and the Judaic powers behind such shows will begin to reveal their agenda.

Once put forth by Jon Hein, the idea of jumping the shark spawned books and websites tracking such developments by fans of various shows, and “has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment in its evolution when a brand, design, or creative effort moves beyond the essential qualities that initially defined its success, beyond relevance or recovery.”[4]

What causes this episode to “jump the shark” is the blatant inability to understand the collegiality, derived from the primitive Aryan Männerbund, that underlies, and makes possible, the great institutions of White civilization. Whereas for the Judaic, and the increasingly Judaicized TV audience, the only tie is what Marx called the “cash nexus.”

Coincidentally, a real-life international firm, legal this time, blew up over the weekend, and the New York Times’ post-mortem had this to say:

“Because the partnership lacks any shared cultural values or history, money becomes the core value holding the firm together,” said William Henderson, a law professor at Indiana University who studies law firms. “Money is weak glue.”[5]

A bit later, a guest on ZeroHedge had this to say about the economy in general:

In a society and culture that has lost its moral compass, [and thus] a culture of greed, self-serving lies and corrupt vested interests, the word “evil” has lost its power. It has been reduced to a cartoonish label, a cynic’s smarmy joke.

Like Happy Days post-shark?

The Soviet Empire was evil, and President Reagan was mocked by “sophisticates” for labeling our global competitor evil. In the relativist terms of propaganda, the only difference between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were two letters; this is the mindset created by a reliance on propaganda. There is no good or evil, there is only the paycheck“earned” by serving one master or another. . . .

Should we be surprised that the parasites in the media, academia, politics and finance . . .

Hmm, I wonder who They might be?

. . . support the evil that enables their own predation and exploitation? Of course not, for self-service and self-justification are the ultimate American gods.[6]

This is the general problem behind our current financial crisis, the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The author went on to add at his own site:

Lobbyists aren’t hired to understand the big picture, they’re hired to secure a swollen river of free moneyfor their vested-interest clients. Public unions, banks, Big Pharma, for-profit hospital chains, insurance companies, defense contractors, etc. don’t care where the swag comes from or how it’s skimmed, they only care about getting their share of it.

This describes not just the political battle between the 0.5% and the 99.5%, but the diverging interests of the various vested interests and Elites. It would be tidy if all the Elites were united, but as pressures build and systems are pushed to extremes, the interests of Elites diverge to the point that the system is pulled apart. None of the Elites are willing to act in the best interests of the nation, and so their self-absorbed greed becomes a destructive force that cannot be controlled.

The decline of the Roman Empire had this subtext. In Victorian England, the landed Elites who skimmed rents fought a political war with the Imperial “free trade” manufacturers who profited from the expansion of the Empire and the industrial workforce. The manufacturers won and the landed Nobility, though still immensely wealthy, took a back seat.[7]

Self-service may be designated our “ultimate god” I suppose both prospectively and retrospectively; that is to say, ultimate as our final goal, but also, if you think about it, as something that only very recently became such. Were self-service, self-justification, and self-absorbed greed always our gods? And, as the Firesign Theatre famously asked, “who am us, anyway?”[8]

I’m calling “bullshit” or “shenanigans” on the whole idea. No, Mr. Weiner, I don’t believe for a second that the senior partners of major Mad Ave firms would tolerate for an instant the idea of whoring out a well-respected, long-serving employee to get an account.

Pete, sure, he’s the designated sleazeball; precisely for his WASP background. In the very first episode, his treatment of female employees caused Don, the Alpha Male, to tell him he may get a corner office, but “everyone will hate you.” As an outsider, he’s allowed the Judaic role of “correcting” the errant WASP.

As for crazy, cranky Bert Cooper, we recall an early episode where Pete, again, was the villain, trying out of pure spite to expose Don as an imposter (and, apparently, a battlefield deserter who could get the death penalty), leading to Bert’s surprising, anticlimactic response:

“Mr. Campbell, who cares?”

Who indeed? Not Bert, a WASP old-timer with a Samurai obsession — both cultures of honor, not money — but, apparently, more recently a devotee of crypto-Judaic Ayn Rand. Indeed, on Randian grounds, who cares, indeed, if Don is an imposter and a deserter, as long as he makes money for the firm?

But is this then a fair portrait of WASP values, or are they those of a Russian fanatic whose real life disciple wasn’t Bert Cooper but Alan Greenspan, author of America’s economic collapse?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.

And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality . . .

ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.[9]

Did you catch that “everyone has one” bit? No, Mr. Greenspan, not everyone has an ideology, a crazy made up “rational” structure into which they spend 40 years trying to shoe-horn reality until finally giving up. Only, the Judaic. Tikkun olam!

The whole “idea” that “everyone is corrupt” “everyone is for sale” etc. is pure Frankfurt School drivel — authentic Judaic gibberish, to adapt Mel Brook‘s Judaic sneer at the wisdom of our pioneer forefathers[10] — in which the Judaic impudently imputes his own failing and obsessions onto the goy, and then contemns him for them.

The sexually obsessed Freud screams “It’s all about sex,” the money obsessed Marx counters “It’s all about money” and the Frankfurters had the genius of combining both, through the efforts of the “dean” of the 60s — and well-paid CIA asset — Herbert Marcuse.[11]

Thus, confronted with the ordeal of civility,”[12] the dirty little Ostjude turns the tables. Sure, he may pick his nose at the dinner table, but you, you stuffy WASP, secretly want to as well, and your fancy “culture” is just your dishonest “sublimation” of that desire.

Listen to how the well-indoctrinated Midwestern White boys of Mystery Science Theater 3000 mock the very idea of dinner table civility; you may think it’s “polite” or “civilized” but they know it’s really a “seething caldron of angst.”[13]

What I am suggesting here, as in my earlier piece on “The Fraud of Miss Jean Brodie”[14] — where we have the related phenomenon of a Leftist imagining a “fascist” sympathizer — is that the Jew, when “exposing” the WASP is really exposing himself (and keep your smutty Judaic giggling to yourself!). He has nothing to build his indictment on but himself, his own twisted view of the world and human nature, which he first impudently imputes to the WASP, then turns the tables by using the WASP’s idea of fairness to convict the WASP, himself, of incivility!

We’ve see this, for example, in the Hollywood Nazi, believing himself to belong to a Master Race destine to “rule the world” and frothing with irrational genocidal hatred of all other races which must be exterminated; this caricature clearly corresponds to no known National Socialist of any significance, but is clearly the projection of the Hollywood Judaic, based on his delusional and genocidal ethnocentricity. To find the Frothing Nazi one must look at any random comment on foreign affairs by any “mainstream” Israeli or Christian Zionist politician; who, of course, are constantly warning us of the latest “New Hitler” over there.

Here too, the Judaics have jumped the shark; with Inglourious Basterds, audiences were sickened by the display of gleeful Jewish sadism, while responding to the “evil” Nazis as quite decent chaps.[15]

“You want the scent? Smell yourself.” — Hannibal Lechter, Manhunter

And to explain “how could the Germans do this” we have the too-famous “Milgram Experiment” which everyone “knows” proves we (viz., White folks) are all just itching to bow down to authority figures and start torturing innocent prisoners. As one critic writes of this absurd imposture:

As if ordinary people were going to kill other people for 50 bucks. It’s pure nonsense.

They explain this behavior by saying people obey the authority. This is why they would obey the scientist of the experiment. Complete bullshit. Those people were not in the twilight zone. They were in the USA in the 60’s. . . .

Those people would have immediately thought that they were committing a very grave crime and that it would not have been the authority of the scientist which would have protected them from being put in jail for murder. Which can lead you to the death penalty or, at best, being put in jail for the rest of your life. So, they would have very quickly ended this experiment. . . . And trying to make us believe that someone would think “ok, you are a scientist. I respect your authority. Let’s kill this guy” is ridiculous.

Needless to point out, Milgram was a Judaic, and explicitly conducted his “experiment” to “prove” the equally outlandish idea that the most educated, most civilized, white people in the world would turn themselves over to demonic madmen and carry out “the worst crime in history”™. As the critic concludes:

In fact, the real subject of this experiment is the goy who believe[s] this canard. By believing this ridiculous story because people with pompous titles at the television tells it’s true he is the one who obey[s] blindly the authority as the experiment concludes.[16]

As for “it was the ’60s.” well, that’s the whole point. The evil days before Judaics took things in hand. Once more, the same trope: a false story of the evil repressive White past is used to screw down the real, present (and future) Judaic domination. Freedom is indeed slavery.

And speaking of slavery, consider one final example, not a big movie about WWII but a half-assed TV movie about the Civil War: CSA: The Confederate States of America (produced by Spike Lee, but with the usual Judaic financing and producing “talent”). This shark-jumping farrago of nonsense is of course supposed to an “alternative” history anyway — what if the South won Gettysburg and then the war itself? — but the events dreamed up — the South takes over the North, and not just reinstates slavery there but requires slave ownership (how’s that supposed to be financed? Sounds kind of like Obamacare), then heads off to conquer Central America, etc. — presuppose a level of ignorance about the motives of the South and, indeed, the mental state of the whole country, that is truly breath-taking, leaving one with the same question one had after one of George W. Bush’s speeches: is he stupid, or does he think I am?

But then what is one to expect from a people who, as Norman Podhoretz famously stated, regard the Civil War as an event as “remote and as irrelevant as the War of the Roses.” [17]

Once again, Judaics draw on their own psyches (for indeed, was it not the North that was the expansionist, totalitarian power, both internally and, once that was sewed up, going abroad to Latin America) to produce a distorted history, and Whites are ignorant enough to lap it up.[18]

As Francis Parker Yockey said about an earlier Judaic type, the Beatnik: “He believes in nothing and respects nothing because there is nothing within his range of vision worthy of respect or inspiring belief.” Or as Schopenhauer said, “No man can see over his own head.”[19]

And thus is our “modern world” produced: in which the past is denigrated and demonized as a cauldron of racism, sexism, slavery, oppression, mind control, etc.[20] while the supposedly “enlightened” present “presents” exactly those characteristics, and the public, continually “taught” how unhappy people must have been “back then,” is increasingly unhappy and puzzled as to how that can be, and what can be done about it, since “going back” isn’t an option.

A world in which hipsters watch movies like CSA on iPhones built by Chinese slaves.

The model, and goal, is the Israelization of the world, in which a land of state religion, heavily armed citizens, constant warfare, vast open air concentration camps, and women forced off sidewalks and spat on, is presented on billboards in New York subways as a “civilization” to be protected against “the barbarians.”[21]

Where is the true home of “racism, sexism, militarism and homophobia,” America in the ’50s or Israel today?[22]

A false image of the WASP past, constructed from scraps and rags provided by the Judaic spirit itself, has been set up as a Gorgon to bar the way back, while in the present the true Judaic spirit disports itself unchallenged; the only thing worse than being called a “conservative” or “reactionary” is being called an “anti-Semite.”

This is the world constructed in Mad Man, where WASPS are conniving evildoers slowly being overcome by the forces of Good, in the form of Bob Dylan and a slow influx of Jewish copywriters.

* * *

To see what real WASP collegiality was, even when filmed through a Judeo-Marxist lens, no better specimen could be found than Otto Preminger’s 1962 film, Advise and Consent, from Allen Drury‘s 1959 bestseller and, according to Peter Bogdanovich, “by far the best political movie ever made in this country.”

AandC [not AMC] is essentially Mad Men: The Movie, with politics for advertising and gorgeous B&W photography for Mad Men: TV’s ’60s Cinerama color, plus the all the advantages of actually being filmed in Mad Men Time, such as a real Saul Bass title sequence rather than MM: TV ’s knockoff.

“I thought they did a pretty good job portraying 1962.”

“Yeah, considering they made it in 1965.”

– Mystery Science Theater 3000, on Red Zone Cuba

Here’s what IMDB has for a plot synopsis:

A look behind the scenes at the wheeling and dealing that goes on in Washington to get things done. The dying President (Franchot Tone) nominates a controversial candidate (Henry Fonda as Robert A. Leffingwell) for Secretary of State. The film, based on real events, follows the public and private dealings as the Senate holds confirmation hearings on the nomination. Blackmail, smear tactics, political trade-offs and more highlight this movie. Senate majority leader Robert Munson of Michigan (Walter Pidgeon) tries to steer Leffingwell toward confirmation, with his initial roadblock being . . . Seabright “Seab” Cooley-SC (Charles Laughton). . . . . But Munson bypasses overly-ambitious Wyoming senator Fred Van Ackerman (George Grizzard) to put Utah’s Brigham “Brig” Anderson (Don Murray) in charge of the committee vetting of Leffingwell. . . . Van Ackermann sics a team of blackmailers on the bisexual Anderson in an attempt to ensure the nomination, even though Anderson, Munson, and the president know Leffingwell has provided perjured testimony about his past. Anderson travels to New York and assaults his old army lover outside a gay bar, returning to the Capitol to slit his own throat in his Senate office. Chastened by Anderson’s suicide, Munson and Cooley agree to disagree in a “nice” way, and the full Senate vote on Leffingwell’s nomination ends on a 47–47 tie since Munson has shamed Van Ackerman into walking out of the chamber before his name is called. Just as the voting ends, the Vice-president Harley Hudson (Lew Ayres) is informed [of] the President’s death. Knowing that Leffingwell has given false testimony under oath, Hudson refuses to honor his mentor’s dying wish, stating that as president-apparent, he’ll nominate his own choice for Secretary of State.

Wow, not much congeniality there! What a field day for one of our modern, Judaic or Judaic-inspired directors. Imagine what the Coen Brothers, or even Tim Robbins would do with this stuff.

But, and this is a large part of my point, those were different times. While we’ll see that Preminger has some “socially conscious” cards to play, he is very careful — some critics at the time even finding him too careful — to present the Senate as, on balance, a bunch of flawed but honest individuals — all white men, of course[23] — within a grand old institution — separation of powers, “advise and consent.” etc., based on a Constitution which Preminger called “the finest machine for governing yet invented,” but which today the “right“ mocks as a “piece of paper” (George W.) and the “left” denigrates as a charter of slavery.[24]

This was not yet “the” ’60s, and why antagonize an establishment that’s more or less going your way — desegregation, civil rights, etc. Not until Vietnam split the elites would Washington as such become the target of the Left.

You’ll notice that the kernel of the narrative is secret lives, just like Mad Men. The motor of the plot is Leffingwell’s Hiss-like secret life, but the real focus becomes Brig Anderson. Just as Don needs to keep anyone from finding out that before accidentally killing the real Don Draper during the Korean War, he was just a hick named Dick, so Brig, played by DON Murray, needs to conceal a homosexual encounter during WWII.

The phalanx of Secret Service men who bound up the stairs of the Capitol and fan out across the Senate chamber in the wake of the President’s death, in their dark, tight suits and hats, resemble the cast of Mad Men or perhaps How to Succeed In Business, a contemporaneous musical hit starring Bobby Morse, who now plays Bert Cooper.[25]

Van Ackerman is clearly the Pete Campbell of the Senate. In an interesting move, indicative of an earlier generation’s objectivity, he’s a funhouse McCarthy, now a Democrat giving speeches about need for a speedy peace treaty with the Russians to his local “committees” and employing an army of “researchers” to smear and blackmail anti-communists — Roy Cohn ret-conned as a homophobe. Like Campbell, he’s youthful, brash, up-and-coming, and employs “research” to promote his ideas. They are the sleazy future of their respective professions.[26]

But how differently they are handled! Campbell’s blackmail attempt is airily dismissed by the Rand-promoting Senior Partner Bert Cooper with “Who cares?” After all, it’s all about money, right?

By contrast, although he is guilty of not just attempted blackmail but even hounding a fellow Senator to his death, this is not what Van Ackerman finally must answer for. Rather, as the Majority Leader — standing in here for Cooper — tells him,

By the way, could today’s Senate possibly be any more different? “Tolerate freedom” indeed! Imagine trying to maintain a viable political career after acquiring a reputation for fanaticism, prejudice, demagoguery, to say nothing of that ominous . . . anything. Former Minority Leader Trent Lott, for example, was hounded from the Senate after daring to praise not just “the old days” but their living representative: Sen. Strom Thurmond, in the heated political context of a birthday party. Not only from North Carolina but even President Pro Tem of the Senate, Strom is the exact double of A&C’s Sen. Seabright Cooley.[27]

While the Senate allows a lot that today is forbidden, there’s one thing they won’t stand for, that today is treated like a joke: honor. When’s the last time anyone resigned over anything in Washington? Nothing’s worth giving up the best gig around. When Van Ackerman protests that he acted for the good of the country (thus doing his job, as he sees it, like making money is the Mad Men’s job), the senior Senator from Michigan easily waves aside that excuse:

“Fortunately, our country always manages to survive patriots like you. We could introduce a resolution to censure and expel you. But we don’t want Brig Anderson’s tired old sin made public. Whatever it was. So we let you stay . . . if you want to.”

When thus confronted, and suddenly aware that all of the Senate knows he has committed the one unpardonable sin— non-collegiality—Van Ackerman, finally achieving self-knowledge, does the decent thing and exiles himself from the body he has offended.

By contrast, Bert Cooper waives away Don’s “sin” for no higher reason than because he’s the best moneymaker in the firm, and Campbell’s dismissal for incivility was never on the table — and eventually, he becomes a junior partner in the new firm — because he’s the up and coming moneymaker; neither he, Cooper or even Don would even imagine resigning out of a sense of honor.[28]

What then of Don’s “tired old sin”? Whatever “it” was? There have been endless internet debates on exactly what Don’s crime or crimes are. Desertion, treason, manslaughter, bigamy, in some combination, but what? Don usually calls it “desertion” but that may be just his own shorthand, or a cover story for an even more terrible crime.

“They don’t have a name for what he is” — Clarice Starling on Hannibal Lecter

“Check first the ones rejected for having lied about criminal records, look for severe childhood disturbances associated with violence. Our Billy wasn’t born a killer, Clarice. Oh no, he was made one through years of systematic abuse . . . Our Billy hates his own identity you see, he always has and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying. He wants to be reborn you see. Our Billy wants to be reborn, Clarice. And he will be reborn.” — Dr. Lecter on Buffalo Bill

An absurd comparison? Remember, Don is the Aryan Alpha Male as re-imagined by jealous little Hollywood Judaics, so any crime is possible. To the Judaic, the imagined “crimes” of the White world both justify his own behavior (“Hey, that’s the dirty way you guys got to the top”) and at the same time de-legitimize White society in its own, hyper-moralistic eyes (“How can we ever make amends for our horrible historical crimes?”).

This is also the function of the cult of the Holocaust, which, being “the greatest evil ever committed,” serves to simultaneously absolve Israel of any crime (“Hey, it’s not like it’s a Holocaust already!”) while permanently indebting an inguilting the White world.[29]

Unless, and until, the white world learns to take Jonathan Bowden‘s advice and “just step over it.”[30]

Of course, everything from The Iliad to Jersey Shore requires some suspension of disbelief, but the amorphousness of Don’s “tired old sin” (unlike Brig’s sharply delineated lapse, with its witnesses, letters, confrontations, and a laughable visit to a “gay bar” in New York City, complete with Hollywood Liberal Frank Sinatra showing his solidarity by licensing one single verse of a song to play on the jukebox, like a charity donation, etc.) suggests that it stands in for the total depravity of the WASP, historically guilty of all crimes, and hence, literally, capable of Munson‘s shuddery “anything” going forward.

In fact, I think I can tell you what Don’s crime is: he is White, successful, and unashamed.

Notes

1. See the work of Michael A. Hoffman II at his Revisionist History blog, which also makes available his seminal book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare (2001).

2. “How They Lie to Us: the film Margin Call” by Edmund Connelly , May 27, 2012. Even more recently, Kevin MacDonald discussed an article in the Wall Street Journal as evidence of a new level of “Jewish triumphalism regarding its domination of American culture” coupled with “strenuously resist[ing…] any mainstream public discussion of the fact that not only has their culture been taken away from White Americans, but the new culture of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism inaugurated by the new Jewish elite is fundamentally opposed to their interests.” See “Lee Siegel: Exuding Jewish Triumphalism,” October 28, 2012.

3. Definition of “jumping the shark” at Urban Dictionary. The name stems from the episode of “Happy Days” where Fonzie jumped over a shark on water skis, which also illustrates our theme, since the “’50s nostalgia” show was gradually taken over by New York Jew Henry Winkler, originally a vaguely alien presence in the wholesome suburbs of Milwaukee (“For a show that in its early seasons depicted universally-relatable adolescent and family experiences against a backdrop of 1950s nostalgia, this incident marked an audacious, cartoonish turn towards attention-seeking gimmickry. Initially a supporting character, the faddish lionization of an increasingly superhuman Fonzie became the focus of Happy Days” says Wikipedia), and was created by Gary Marshall, a non-Judaic often mistaken, along with his sister Penny, for a Judaic since, as he boasts, “I grew up in the Bronx and we had a lot of them.” See “An Interview with the Cast of Keeping Up With The Steins” here.

6.“Guest Post: The Rot Runs Deep 1: The Federal Reserve Is A Parasitic Wealth Transfer Machine” by Charles Hugh Smith, August 26, 2012. Smith has an excellent blog, Of Two Minds, that often runs such pieces, as we will soon see, where the parasites are triangulated but never quite named.

8. How Can You Be in Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All, Columbia Records, 1969, in answer to a patriotic chorus of “What Makes America Great”: “Its spics and wops and niggers and kikes with noses as long as your arm! Its micks and chinks and gooks and geeks and honkies (Honk! Honk!) who never left the farm!” On the flip side, a disgruntled actor on the radio detective show “Nick Danger, Third Eye” dreams aloud of taking over and, among other things, having “no Jewish writers.”

10. You can sample some here. Of course, Mel would say it’s “all a joke” if any White person objected, or to description of “the people of the land… you know, morons. “ (am ha’aretz or ‘the people of the Land’ is an old Talmudic insult). But like all Judaic “jokes,” it’s slow-acting cultural poison, rattling around in the heads of “these lovely children here today” According to the oh-so-unbiased Urban Dictionary, frontier gibberish is “currently used by members of the Tea Party in decrying the state of affairs in our nation. Characterized by longing for a return to the gold standard, Anglo-Saxon cultural supremacy, and the return of Johnny Carson to late-night television,” while a commenter at YouTube adds “Sarah Palin’s main stream media fantastic rant.”

11. To paraphrase an Italian Rightist, he’s the Left’s Evola — only an idiot.

12. See the invaluable The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity by John Murray Cuddihy (New York: Basic Books, 1974). Reviewed by a White Nationalist here under the wonderful title “Our Apoplectic Invaders Considered:” “Freud described as ‘sick’ Gentile behavior that was, to us, healthy and necessary. But it was not out of mere misunderstanding that Freud came to his conclusions. Animosity toward Gentiles played no small part. . . . When Jews sneer that Gentiles are embarrassed by sex and need to be ‘unmasked,’ Cuddihy points out that what they’re trying to do is strip all humanity to base commonalities in an effort to make their crude, uncivilized selves feel more acceptable, all the while rudely ignoring the evolved and genuine social need for Gentile conventions. The Gentile is left shamed and confused, convinced that he must “let it all hang out” if he is to achieve mental health. Freud is revealed as a clever Jew pleased with himself for having pulled the Gentile’s pants down to point out to the assembled crowd that, like other mammals, this one’s got genitalia. Cuddihy coolly returns the favor.”

13. Parody of the short film A Date with Your Family, in which this ’50s attempt to teach manners to the rising generation of juvies and immigrants like Da Fonze is now ridiculed by the MST3K with all the tropes of the Frankfurt School: Mother wants a career, Father’s moving to Fire Island, brother is toking pot, sister is both pregnant and “dating a Negro.” A similar “ordeal of civility” dynamic simmered beneath the Seinfeld scenes where George — supposedly Italian but for our purposes a Marrano — dined with fiancée Susan’s parents (including a father who had a secret affair with John Cheever).

15. Trevor Lynch calls it “probably the most anti-Semitic movie ever released by Hollywood” in his Counter-Currents review here.

16. See others by one “voerioc” at biglies.org.

17. “Vidal stuck by dual loyalty charge against Podhoretzes to the end” by Philip Weiss on October 8, 2012. Weiss adds this interesting observation about another culture-distorter: “I had this out with my old friend Norman Lear, who said “you can’t say ‘assimilated.’” I said, “Come on, you started People for the American Way. Well, which are you? If you’re not going to be an ‘assimilated’ American, then what are you? Are you an Israeli who happens to be living here?” Lear of course perpetrated the Archie Bunker caricature of white, working class Americans, despite an ignorance that led him to suggest, in the show’s opening song, that they thought “we need a man like Herbert Hoover again”; White Americans then rewarded him with a ratings blockbuster that’s still eulogized 50 years later; see Kevin MacDonald’s “Norman Lear’s ‘All in the Family’ resurfaces,” which also notes (without using the term) how the show eventually “jumped the shark” as Archie was relentless and implausibly “Judaized,” from adopting a Jewish girl to attending Seders to organizing a neighborhood group to protect synagogues!

18. You can enjoy some of the push-back from historically-informed and racially-conscious White Americans here and here.

21. “A pro-Israeli poster comparing Muslims to barbarians will soon be displayed in New York City’s subway stations following a US court order allowing such hate ads to be posted in public. The inflammatory billboard advertisement, which reads, ‘In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad,’ has presumably been financed by radical conservative blog writer Pamela Geller and is to be installed at 10 different metro stops.” “Anti-Islam posters to appear in NY subway stations.”

22. In Chapter Two of The Homo and the Negro, “Homosexuality, ‘Traditionalism,’ & Really-Existing Tradition,” I’ve discussed how homophobia in the Arab world is itself a creation of Western “modernity” which in turn is offered as the false “solution”; here again a fake past is constructed and then a fake solution offered. More generally, we see an even closer analogue in the cynically named “Arab Spring” in which peaceful, albeit authoritarian Arab states are designated as “failed states that support terrorism” in order to be torn apart by the USA and Israel and replaced by “free and democratic” states of unparalleled barbarism and violence.

23. There is one woman, Betty WHITE, and it’s a real hoot to see her in the role; sort of like the way her later co-star Ted Knight shows up around the same time as a sheriff in Psycho. As befitting the minor role of women here, she only appears once. but it’s a doozie, besting Van Ackerman in debate, thus demonstrating his low status and qualifications for the Männerbund of the Senate. Also befitting the times, she’s a Republican from Kansas, unlike today’s coastal liberal harridans. She may be a beard, lest the Senate seem too “Socratic”? It‘s interesting to note that in various transcriptions on the internet, Munson’s dressing-down of Van Ackerman, which we’ll soon quote, mentions not “fanaticism” but to “Atticism.” Truly, this Senate is a Männerbund. Other social outliers are Kennedy in-law Peter Lawford as a JFK like womanizer, thus presumably Catholic, and of course the Mormon Brig Anderson. Gosh, it’s almost like things were “diverse” back then, isn’t it?

24. For perhaps more detail then you may wish on this fictional body politic, see the admittedly “long and self-indulgent” analysis at “The Fictional Senate of Allen Drury’s Adviseand Consent” by David Bratman. Bratman also notes that “Pretty much all of the dramatic events of the climax of Advise and Consent — the suicide of a senator, the resignation and re-election of the Majority leader, the censure of a senator, the death of a president shortly before a major peace conference, the rejection by the Senate of an important nominee … — have thus actually happened. Where Drury departs from reality is by having them all occur at once, by speeding up the process many-fold, and in the political spin he puts on his story.” As we said about the equally true but implausible events of The Untouchables (see here as well as Chapter 9 of The Homo and the Negro), both movies abide by Aristotle’s dictum that poetry is more true than history, since it narrates what ought to have happened, unlike, we would add, Judaic inspired “fact grubbing.”

25. Again, from MST3K‘s version of Red Zone Cuba, as black-suited Federal agents arrive on the scene: “The cast of How to Succeed in Business swarms in.”

26. In another ret-con, he’s given Wyoming to represent, while Utah Senator Brig’s suicide recalls “the actual suicide of Senator Lester Hunt of Wyoming in 1954, and its treatment perhaps conditioned by Drury’s own rumored homosexuality.” See “Advise and Consent at 50” by Thomas Mallon, New York Times, June 25, 2009.

27. See this year’s Strom Thurmond’s America by Joseph Crespino, reviewed here. In that review the author notes that “Sen. Ted Kennedy appreciated the ‘new’ Thurmond, describing him as ‘fair to all sides. That’s the ideal that ‘Sea’ Cooley betrayed, as he finally admits to the Senate that his pursuit of Leffingwell was motivated by revenge for a personal slight, not national security.” Needless to say, “fairness to all sides” is a dead letter to today‘s self-righteous PC Left; those who dare to disagree are mad or bad, and must be hounded to their death — sounds sort of like the way proto-Leftist Van Ackerman handles Brig.

28. Don doesn‘t even know what acting on principle is. A few seasons back, Don’s anti-smoking ad was written only after they had already lost Lucky Strike, and this season he’s stunned to learn that his own industry took him seriously as an anti-smoking activist — and even worse, so did potential clients!

Related

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

The first season of Mad Men contains explicit references to Jews, and the traditional attitudes. Sterling asks Draper if they have hired any Jews, and Draper says “Not on my watch.” It is done as a joke between the characters, but one of those jokes that really no one knows whether it is a joke or not. The viewers think it is hilarious and outrageous, and are thrilled that finally there is a show that can go there. That line was in fact in the pilot, which is of course a clue to the con. Which is, here is the show that will delight you in its treatment of the old days. But behind the scenes, it is the reformation of your view of the old days, or as i like to call it, the old daze.

The con is successful because there is criticism to be made. A culture of Honor was the White remedy, to its own faults. And cases, made up and real, where honor failed are used to destroy what is left. That seems an impossible situation – how can something be the agent of its own destruction – but that is life in so many ways.

On a lighter note, the act of advertising, with made up images, is in itself, a concession.

Why bother watching any show that was created by a jew? Of course the Whites are going to be evil (except the Whites who go against the interests of their fellow Whites) and the jews are going to be good. Nothing new here.

Well, between performers, directors, producers, sponsors, network owners, etc, it would be hard to find any form of art or entertainment these days that doesn’t have some level of Judaic input or influence.

Wagner conducted by Levine or Barenboim [a protege of Furtwangler’s btw] is still Wagner, I suppose, although the productions, as explored on this site, do tend to be anti-White in staging.

In my book I suggest that the “authentic performance” movement is/was implicitly White, scraping away centuries of “performance tradition” that was really just Judaicizing: syrupy violin portamento, ‘virtuosity’ in general, etc. The neo-cons hated it especially, see Samuel Lipman’s article in New Criterion.

Anyway, why watch the Jew Tube?

1. Find out what our enemies are doing
2. Keep in touch with pop culture, and find ways to make use of it for our purposes.

This piece is an example of the first; analyzing how the Jew has tricked us [well, our countrymen, not US!].

My earlier piece on Mad Men was the second type: the popularity of the 60s with the audiences took the producers by surprise [sort of the way Archie Bunker turned out to be beloved, not hated as Norman Lear intended]. I suggested Mad Men style, especially in clothing, as a strategy for how the alt-Right should present itself, eschewing Gap couture, skinhead or redneck grunge, etc.

“I suggested Mad Men style, especially in clothing, as a strategy for how the alt-Right should present itself, eschewing Gap couture, skinhead or redneck grunge, etc.”

Definitely agree there. Aesthetics are important. I cringe at Whites who are fat, overweight, bearded, have no sense of decor, etc. and who proclaim themselves a superior race. These degenerates do more harm than good.

I receive only about 4 TV channels (excluding the all-weather channel), so I can’t comment about Mad Men, which I’ve never seen.

The website about Drury’s Advise and Consent that you link to is quite interesting. You write:

Bratman also notes that “Pretty much all of the dramatic events of the climax of Advise and Consent — the suicide of a senator, the resignation and re-election of the Majority leader, the censure of a senator, the death of a president shortly before a major peace conference, the rejection by the Senate of an important nominee … — have thus actually happened. Where Drury departs from reality is by having them all occur at once, by speeding up the process many-fold.

I saw Preminger’s movie a couple of times and liked it. So the foreshortening of events and having them all occur at once evidently worked for me within the framework of fictional plausibility, although I don’t recall that particular aspect of the film at the moment.

But that is not always the case, as with Shakespeare. Or, again, Scorsese’s The Departed (which, remember, I nevertheless regarded as entertaining).

Recall the scene from the latter film where Nicholson’s character says scornfully to the Chinese gangsters buying the stolen microchips from him that the reason his men aren’t armed with machine guns is because “you can get a life sentence for something like that.”

The idea that in the modern age of forensics the wild series of homicides—between a bunch of cops no less!—at the end of the movie, more sloppy than virtually any Old West gunfight, would occur, and Damon breeze past the board of review (as is briefly shown) really does not work. As a writer or filmmaker you can’t just do anything you want.

But discipline is required. Again, the creators of Home Alone worked extremely hard to make the initial premise of the film (fictionally) plausible, being quite funny all the while. That kind of craft is really impressive.

I neglected to mention the omnipresence of surveillance cameras today.

You are conflating two distinct concepts: deaths happening all at once, and, within a fictional framework, numerous deaths plausibly occurring all at once.

I have always regarded Masada as a Jewish myth, along with “No Dogs or Jews Allowed” signs, eyewitness testimony of Polish, Hungarian, and other Jews emitting different colored smoke from the “ovens” based upon their nationality, every famous Jew who ever lived getting beat up by anti-Semitic white kids at school, etc., etc.

Readers interested in this topic might want to go to the Drury web page mentioned in the article and scroll down to the last subheading, “The Sequels to Advise and Consent ,” to see how Drury evidently ran off the rails in the plausibility department in his later novels. http://home.earthlink.net/~dbratman/drury.html

He got by with it in his most famous novel, but not in subsequent ones.

Since Taki doesn’t let people leave comments on his pieces, let me observe here that no sooner did my piece appear here this morning, than Taki posted this afternoon this:

“In 19th-century Virginia, we were governed by an honor code where members of secret societies and their old-fashioned ideals of discretion were paramount. They acted toward each other with respect and loyalty as if Thomas Jefferson himself was ever present.”

He even goes on to make the same sartorial point I made in my earlier piece, reprinted in my new book:

“In the Big Bagel during the mid to late 1950s, the last innings of a WASP culture were drawing to a close. Every man, no matter his financial status, wore a suit.”

James, would you be kind enough to re-post the links to the WASPy clothier’s and tailor’s sites that you posted at your blog awhile ago? You know, those companies that sell loafer tassels, blazer buttons and monogrammed sterling silver salad hammers. I will be in New York at the end of the month and I’d like to know where to go to get fitted for a three button seersucker suit, not a two button Ralph Lauren knock off. Thank you, “Chip” Chapwood.

“One agent inspires an endless series of “preppy” riffs even as Adam Chance, now sporting a yellow cardigan, strangles him with a coat hanger (“Pops, there’s a man giving the squish-squash to the old wind tube”) and sends his generic-looking “Dry Cleaning” van over a cliff (“Say, the old top-knot seems to be in flames, old trench”)”

“The sexually obsessed Freud screams “It’s all about sex,” the money obsessed Marx counters “It’s all about money” and the Frankfurters had the genius of combining both, through the efforts of the “dean” of the 60s — and well-paid CIA asset — Herbert Marcuse.”

Brilliant summary. But wasn’t the 60s era CIA a bit on the WASPy side?

“The model, and goal, is the Israelization of the world, in which a land of state religion, heavily armed citizens, constant warfare, vast open air concentration camps, and women forced off sidewalks and spat on, is presented on billboards in New York subways as a “civilization” to be protected against “the barbarians.”

Some great work once again by James. Your a master of unveiling the dark arts being used in this war. We really do need more Loki’s (like Malone in your Untouchables essay) in order to take the offensive and guide the virtuous warriors. I’m reminded of The Godfather when Tom Hagen, the most principled and probably smartest character was overlooked for the ‘war council’ because he wasn’t sufficiently wise in the ‘dark side’… or as Michael later claimed, had to be protected from the ‘taint’ of such affairs.